As a former Executive Director of the World Bank I know that the columnists of the Financial Times have more voice than what I ever had, and therefore they might need some checks-and-balances.
Currently, having probably trampled some delicate ego, I am a persona non grata at FT.
Would the child shouting out “the Emperor is naked” have his observation published in FT? Would the child now need a PhD for that?

For more see "A Blog is Born" at the very bottom.

May 30, 2012

Sir, Martin Wolf, in “The riddle of German self-interest”, May 30, refers to governments and banks as “the drunks are seeking to stay upright by leaning on one another”, but fails, as usual, to explain that the brewage these drunkards intoxicated on, were the basically non-existent capital requirements for banks when engaging with something officially perceived as not-risky.

Mr. Wolf should run a regression between all the problem loans in banks that caused this crisis, like lousy securities disguised as splendid triple-A’s, loans to Icelandic banks, loans by the Spanish banks to the real estate sector in Spain, loans to a Greek government, and other similar… on the risk-weight of 20 percent or less and which, according to Basel II, allowed the banks to finance that mentioned holding only 1.6 percent or less in capital.

If the Germans would come to understand what was the primary cause Europe ran into trouble, then they might be more sympathetic to Wolf’s urgings, otherwise there is no reason why they should not believe these are simply the expression of his own self-interest.

May 28, 2012

Sir, Edward Luce, in “The worst is still ahead for Obama’s chief firefighter” May 28 writes “If there’s just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy, that’s an easier negotiation”

Absolutely! And this is what these two great gentlemen would say.

“Franklin, why do we not get rid of this stupid bank regulations they sold us as being able to control for the risk of default, and which has only brought us obese bank exposures to what was officially perceived as absolutely not risky, generating so many losses in lousily awarded mortgages disguised as splendid triple-A’s, lousy loans to Icelandic banks, lousy bank loans by the Spanish banks to the real estate, lousy loans to a Greek government?”

“Indeed dear Winston, and to top it up, as I believe you call it, they also hindered our banks to give loans to our “risky” small businesses and entrepreneurs, and which you and I know are the ones most likely to take our nations forwards”… and so…

“We, Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, in order to save the Western world, knowing that risk-taking is the oxygen of any development, hereby decree the closure of the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision and the expulsion, forever, of their silly wimpy nannies. We also declare substituting immediately a Financial Functionality Board for a purposeless Financial Stability Board”

May 23, 2012

Sir, Martin Wolf ask us to “Consider how much better off Europe would have been if the exchange rate mechanism had continued, instead, with wide bands. Interest rates in the crisis-hit countries would probably have been higher and asset price bubbles and current account deficits smaller”, “A fragile Europe must change fast” May 23.

Indeed Wolf is right, but only partially. He still stubbornly, no matter how much I explain it to him, refuses to consider that much more important than the Euro, for the construction of bubbles and deficits were the minuscule capital requirements for banks when lending to what was officially perceived as safe.

Has Wolf for instance completely forgotten the over 1 trillion in Euros that where invested in triple-A rated securities backed with lousily awarded mortgages to the subprime sector, and which required only 1.6 percent in capital of the banks, the same minimal capital requirement as when lending to Greece? What on earth had that to do with the Euro?

May 18, 2012

Sir, Martin Wolf cheerfully quotes Jonathan Portes of the National Institute of Economics and Social Research saying “with long-term government borrowing as cheap as in living memory, with unemployed workers… this is the time for government to borrow and invest”, “Cameron is consigning the UK to stagnation” May 18.

Not necessarily so! Government lending is not viewed by the markets as an attractive cruise boat, but more as a floating piece of driftwood they need to hang on to so as not to drown… and, if to the low rates nominal rates, we add the opportunity cost of all those who are being squeezed out from lending because their borrowings generate capital requirements for the banks while the “infallible sovereign” does not, then the real rates on government borrowing could be historically the highest.

Why do they not for instance half the current capital requirements for banks when lending to small businesses and entrepreneurs, so to allow these to lend a helping hand? Or has the whole debate and regulations been monopolized by the “we-trust-only-governments” crowd?

May 15, 2012

Sir, in “JPMorgan takes a salutary stumble” May 15, you hold that “Bank’s loss illustrates why its boss is wrong on regulation”. Mr. Dimon must certainly be wrong in many ways, at least I have never thought him or anyone else as infallible, but, let me assure that if it is about getting it wrong on regulations, then the regulators are the champs.

You mention “reckless practices to reduce risk” and in this I believe we have never ever seen something as reckless as our current regulators. They allowed the banks to hold minimum capital requirements for what they from the outside considered as safer lending than other, without giving a thought to the fact that the perceptions on risks had already been cleared for by the bankers, and that this would alter the whole dynamics of the market.

If I was a shareholder of JPMorgan I would most probably wish for Jamie Dimon to remain as its head, but, as a citizen, I have no doubt I would sack most of our current dumb regulators.

Do we not need to reign in the too-big-to-fail? Of course we do! But there are wise ways and there are reckless dumb ways of doing that. A wise way begins by eliminating all the growth-hormones that have made them so big, like ultralow capital requirements, the dumb way is to give them a special treatment, like is now proposed under the systemic approach, and which will only result in making them bigger and more dangerous.

May 12, 2012

Sir, in reference to John Gapper´s “Jamie Dimon is a whale of a hedge fund manager” May 12, I would not make such a big thing about the 2 billion dollars or so in losses sustained by JP Morgan.

Allowing the banks to lend out to the “infallible sovereigns” against no capital at all, signifies putting all ours, and our children’s´ and our grandchildren’s’ funds, in a truly mindboggling huge hedge fund where the proprietary dealings are not made by a Jamie Dimon, but by some unknown government bureaucrats… with certainly more skewed incentives…and that I guarantee will be much more harmful for tax payers than whatever a JP Morgan can invent.

Frankly sometimes I feel the urge of picking up the phone and calling a Mr. Dimon or someone like him, to beg him to help me save my small savings… that is as long as he agrees to do that in the shadows, as far away as possible from our current loony banks regulators.

May 08, 2012

Sir, Jens Weidmann, the president of the Deutsche Bundesbank, in “Monetary policy is no panacea for Europe´s ill”, May 8, writes that “Macroeconomic imbalances and unsustainable public and private debt in some member states lie at the heart of the sovereign crisis”.

Indeed that is the cancer but, the smoking that caused it, was the silly discrimination through the capital requirements for banks in favor of what was officially perceived as not risky and against what was perceived as risky. Like for instance the 62 to 1 leverage a German bank was allowed to have when lending to Greece, compared to the only 12 to 1 leverage allowed when lending to a German entrepreneur.

And so I feel there is need to remind Mr. Weidmann of the sad fact that Europe still smokes… a lot!

Me and my constituency!

Me and my constituency!

FT, just so that you know:

Some very few regulators thinking they were capable of managing the bank risks of the world, caused and are still causing immense sufferings, and you Sir are refusing to help holding them accountable for that.

My wicked question to FT

When do banks most need capital, when the risky turn out risky, or when the "not-risky" turn out risky? --- Yep, I think so too!

Videos: The Financial Crisis

My credentials

I have more credentials than most to speak out on the financial crisis and the subprime financial regulations having spoken out loudly about that since 1997...which could be embarrassing to “experts” with weak egos.

Most of those who think of themselves so broadminded when asking for “out of the box thinking” are so very narrow-minded they can only accept what comes, if that outside box lies “within their own small networks”.

Thank you, Martin Wolf

And on July 12 2012 Wolf also wrote that when "setting bank equity requirements, it is essential to recognise that so-called “risk-weighted” assets can and will be gamed by both banks and regulators. As Per Kurowski, a former executive director of the World Bank, reminds me regularly, crises occur when what was thought to be low risk turns out to be very high risk."

And that is something that I of course also appreciate, but that yet makes me curious on why Wolf does not follow up on it.

Subscribe To

Closed for comments though not entirely

I don’t take comments here because I might not have the time to answer (or censor) them and I hate unanswered comments, but, if you want me to comment on something somewhere else invite me and I might show up: perkurowski@gmail.com

Search This Blog

Off-the-blog

One great perk I get from maintaining a blog like this is that it allows me to sustain many conversations with some great journalists who also need and wish to be kept “off-the-record” or as I call it “off-the-blog”.

Yet one wonders

Between January 2003 and September 2006, out of 138 letters to the editor that I sent to the Financial Times before I placed them on this blog they published these 15. Not bad! Thank you FT!

Unfortunately, since then and until the very last day of the decade, out of some 1.000 letters that you can find here, FT published none, zero, zilch. Of course FT is under no obligation whatsoever to publish any of my letters and of course one should not exclude the possibilities that my letters might have quite dramatically gone from bad to worse… yet one wonders.

My usual suspects are:

1. Someone in FT with a delicate ego feels his or her importance diminished by giving voice to a lowly non PhD from a developing country daring to opine on many issues of developed countries.

2. That FT has some sort of conflict of interest with the credit rating agencies that makes it hard for them to give too much relevance to someone who considers they have been given too much powers.

3. The FT establishment had perhaps decided there were only macro economic problems and not any financial regulation problems, and wanted to hear no monothematic contradictions on that.

4. That FT feels slightly embarrassed when someone repeatedly asks the emperor-is-naked type question of what is the purpose of the banks and realizing this was something FT should have itself asked a long time ago.

5. It is way too much oversight for FT to handle.

6. Or am I just supposed to be a living example of one half of the Financial Times motto, namely that of "without favour"Which one do you believe is closest to the truth?

A Blog is born

I like reading The Financial Times, or FT as it is known, and I frequently write letters to the editor and some of them that have indeed been kindly published, for which I feel thankful. But then I realized that all those letters to the editor that for reasons impossible for me to comprehend were never published, were condemned to an eternal silence not of their own fault, and so I decided to, at a marginal cost of zero, to resurrect them and keep them alive, right here.

English is not my mother language so bear with me and you’ll probably note when my letter has been published in FT by its correctness. Swedish is my mother language but I have not written anything serious in it for about 40 years and last time I tried, they just laughed their hearts out because of my démodés. Polish is my father language but, unfortunately, I do not speak a word of Polish, much less write it. Yes Spanish is my language, as I am from Venezuela and although I trust I write in it with great flair, I would still never dream of publishing an article in Spanish without having it edited by my wife.

And so friends here is my Tea with FT blog with my old and new letters to the editor. I hope you will share them with me now and again, and then again and again.

Welcome, and cheers, as I believe they say over there.

Per

PS. Just so that FT does not get too cocky and believe it is my only window to the world, I will now and again publish a letter sent to the editor of another publication.